Her Majesty the Queen v. Zaheer Ahmad, 2017 ONSC 6153

CITATION: R. v. Ahmad, 2017 ONSC 6153

COURT FILE NO.: CR-17-70000093-0000

DATE: 20171017

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

Zaheer Ahmad

Defendant

A. Grady, for the Crown

L. Riva, for the Defendant

HEARD: September 11-14, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Carole j. brown, j. (ORALLY)

The Charge

[1] Zaheer Ahmad comes before this Court on the following indictment:

Zaheer Ahmad stands charged that he, during the period from and including the 1st day of August in the year 2015, to and including the 30^th day of June in the year 2016, did without lawful authority and knowing that another person, namely Tara Everett, was harassed or was reckless as to whether that person was harassed, engage in repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, Tara Everett, and caused the said Tara Everett to reasonably fear for her safety, contrary to section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Overview

[2] The Crown provided an overview as follows. Tara Everett met the accused, Zaheer Ahmad (“Mr. Ahmad”), on the subway in 2012. They chatted together, got together on a few occasions and, in the Spring of 2013, when the accused needed a place to stay, she offered to have him stay at her apartment for a short while. It was not a romantic relationship. They were roommates. In the Fall of 2013, the accused was arrested while still living at her apartment. By 2015, Ms. Everett no longer wished to have contact with the accused. However, he continued to email her constantly and to leave voicemails. At a certain point, she became fearful for her safety. From January 2016, she did not respond to any further emails or voicemails. The accused, however, continued to send her frequent emails in 2016. Her fear continued.

The Evidence

[3] The evidence was as follows:

The Crown’s Case

Tara Everett

[4] Tara Everett is 46 years of age. She is a sign language interpreter and works freelance. Most of her assignments are obtained by email or telephone.

[5] She met the accused on the subway in November 2012. They would converse on the subway, and then began to exchange emails. They subsequently also exchanged phone numbers, although they rarely spoke by telephone, but did text one another. They emailed one another several times per week. Their relationship was friendly, but not romantic. They would get together every few weeks. They would sometimes meet or he would come to her apartment for a visit.

[6] In April 2013, he called her and said that he needed a place to stay. They had not discussed the amount of time he would stay. In the end, he stayed several months. For her, the arrangement worked at the beginning, but later, she was less happy about his being there as he was not contributing, not tidying up, cleaning, washing dishes, cleaning the bathrooms. He did contribute to groceries. From August to October of 2013, he paid approximately $200 per month rent. Her monthly rent when he first came to the apartment was approximately $800-$850 for a basement bachelor apartment. On September 1, 2013, she moved upstairs to a larger apartment in the same house and paid approximately $999.

[7] While their relationship remained a friendship only, they had casual sex from time to time prior to July or August 2013.

[8] She testified that from August, she had not wanted him to stay with her anymore, and by October 2013, after his arrest from her home, she had made a firm decision not to have him live with her again.

[9] On October 22, 2013, he was arrested by the police from her home. On her way to her work, two policemen had stopped her, shown her a photograph of the accused and asked if she knew him. She advised that he was her roommate, and that he was at her apartment if they needed to see him. Later, her neighbour called her at work and told her that Mr. Ahmed had been arrested. Thereafter, the police called and asked her to come to the station for an interview. She did not know why he had been arrested. She only knew that someone had gone to the police bothered by emails from him. She testified that she was thinking that, with her work, she did not need this kind of thing going on.

[10] She heard from the accused again in October or November after he was released from detention when he had obtained a surety, who lived around the corner from her. He called to get his belongings. Thereafter, she interacted with him from time to time as a friend. From time to time, his mail and some of his belongings were picked up by the surety or dropped off by her at the home of the surety. Most of his belongings, clothing and documents were taken to the surety’s home.

[11] By December of 2013, the surety no longer wished to act as surety and Mr Ahmad was sent to the Metro West Detention Centre, where he remained through approximately March 2014. She went to visit him there, four or five times. She conceded in cross-examination that she still cared about him as a human being and that they had a friendship of sorts. He was subsequently released on probation with conditions, and was trying to find a place to stay. She tried to assist by suggesting places that he could stay. She initially helped him to find a student hostel-type place where he stayed for a while.

[12] After he was released in March 2014, they remained in contact by email. She described the friendship as “a loose friendship”, because she was “done with him”, in terms of having him as a roommate. In the Winter of 2014, they met for breakfast on one occasion and within five minutes he was shouting at her. She left, as she was not going to deal with that in her life.

[13] Nevertheless, he continued to email her through 2014 and onward, requesting that she permit him to live with her. She would respond “no”, although she testified that he just seemed not to understand or accept “no”. He persisted in his email requests, sometimes with a nice email, sometimes nasty, depending on the day.

[14] In cross-examination, she acknowledged that in September 2014, he emailed “that stupid bitch just kicked me out of my place… I’m going to burn her business to the ground”. Ms. Evrett did not go to the police at that time, as she considered the email to be the ranting of someone with mental health issues.

[15] In October 2014, while she was out of town, he emailed five times regarding an emergency. Apparently, her neighbour also saw him on the porch with his bags and she told him to leave or she would call the police. Ms. Everett responded by email on October 16, 2014, telling him “you cannot stay at my house” and also stating “I worry about your mental health”. She further stated that “you are my friend…” but also stated “I cannot help out with whatever emergency you are having.”

[16] He emailed her again October 30 to ask to meet or to stop by her apartment. She responded, assuming he wanted the rest of his belongings, and indicated that she would have them dropped off if he provided his address. She did not want him to come to her apartment.

[17] On December 27, 2014, he again emailed asking to stay with her. She responded “We have had this conversation before. No, you cannot stay with me… It is time for you to make a life for yourself.” On January 6, 2015, she responded “You don’t fucking get it and you don’t respect me as a friend or you would not keep asking… Do not ask it again… Can you live here and pay rent? No… Fuck no.”

[18] The emails continued through 2014 and to mid-2015. She did not initially cut him off, but rather attempted to sympathize with him and his problems. Regarding her emails to him, she stated that she was attempting to provide some support, to respond in a positive way to him as she knew that he had no support in the community and if her emails were positive, she would receive fewer emails back. She was trying to take care of herself at the same time as attempting to placate the accused.

[19] A few of the accused’s belongings remained at her house through early 2015. She testified that this was because of his being in the Metro West Detention Centre and his transient life after he was released.

[20] She admitted in cross-examination that there were times, in their email exchanges, where he would tell her he loved her and, in the beginning, she would indicate the same in response. She continued to show support and friendship through mid-2015. She did care about him as a human being.

[21] However, she was careful in her emails, due to her concerns and suspicions concerning his mental health. She sometimes felt that he was not dealing in reality, and that there was a lack of self-regulation. His emails were unpredictable. He seemed unable to understand when someone said no and would not accept no when he wanted something.

[22] She testified that she continued to email him and give support as she was afraid.

[23] The accused continued to send her emails requesting that she agree to have him move back into her apartment. She testified that there was no way that she would have him in her home again. Finally, in a long email dated August 20, 2015, she told him categorically that she would not have him in her apartment. She stated “I will never share my apartment with you. Ever.… You can email me and phone all you want. I will not respond.” Nevertheless, he continued to email her as well as asking her in person. Subsequently, in an email dated October 8, 2015, she stated “Leave me alone… I want nothing to do with you.… Leave me the fuck alone”.

[24] Nevertheless, he continued to email her and to request that she permit him to live with her. He further requested and sometimes demanded that she respond to him or requested that they get together. This continued through 2016.

[25] She testified that, because she had let him stay at her home previously, she was now nervous and apprehensive about him.

[26] From January 2016, she did not respond to any of his emails. He had not understood that she had imposed boundaries on their relationship, would not accept that she did not want him to live with her and persisted in sending emails and trying to contact her by phone. Despite her silence in response to his emails and telephone calls, he continued his barrage of emails.

[27] She began to receive many emails which were increasingly random, irrational and violent in content. The emails from him were sometimes graphic, sometimes indicating what he would do to her, sometimes “I love you”, sometimes “Let me stay with you”, sometimes wanting to get together with her, sometimes calling her names and sometimes ranting in an angry tone. On occasion, he would send lewd photographs or lewd messages. He made reference to sex with men and women, as he knew that she had had both women and men in her life. Despite her very explicit email of August 20, 2015, telling him he could not live with her and not to contact her again, the emails from him continued. They were random, varied and often did not make sense. Some messages sounded to her like a threat. (“I don’t want to have to go to 55 Division for my mail”, “Precious. My probation ended. Watch out”; “Ready when you are”; “The sooner we get this over the better…”). The emails were perplexing, disconcerting and unwanted and made her nervous and agitated. She also received phone calls from an unidentified caller, although the voicemails which were left were his voice and were recognizable to her as his voice from the time that he had lived at her apartment. She began to monitor her telephone calls at home, given his persistent emails and telephone calls.

[28] In the Winter of 2016, she received emails and perhaps a phone call indicating that he was coming over. She was very upset, and called her neighbour in the upstairs apartment who came down. Ms. Everett requested that her neighbour stay and speak with the accused. The neighbour stayed with Ms. Everett and, when the accused came to the door, the neighbour spoke with him, but did not let him in.

[29] Ms. Everett became angry, upset, nervous and scared, concerned that this may happen again, as he knew her routines and the places she frequented. She became very concerned that he may come back. She would go out on the porch in the mornings on her way to work, stop and look around, up and down the street to ensure that he was not in the vicinity.

[30] She became afraid of his unpredictability. She was feeling frustrated, angry, nervous and distressed as, from his emails, he seemed to refuse to understand that she did not want him to stay with her or to correspond. She became apprehensive and anxious. His emails were intrusive, unwelcomed and unwanted and his persistence began to play on her psyche, mentally and emotionally. She testified that she was afraid of him. She did not feel safe.

[31] The constant emails and phone calls also took up much mental and emotional energy. She explained that her work as a sign language interpreter was cognitively tiring and that she had to always try to push her concerns regarding the accused from her mind in order to do her work.

[32] He also continued to have his mail sent to her home, although she had told him not to do so. Among other things, she received his 2015 income tax return from CRA, which she marked “Return to sender” and sent back to the CRA. In his emails, he became very upset when she would not respond to his emails, and to his requests for the income tax return. At one point, in an email, he threatened to go to the police to obtain his income tax return.

[33] She testified that he had refused to respect the boundaries she had set, refused to take any responsibility, blamed others, including herself for his circumstances.

[34] On May 28, 2016, he emailed her “See you soon, Precious. My probation ended. Watch Out!” She testified that this concerned her, made her nervous and agitated, as she was not sure whether it was a threat, and made her feel that she should be vigilant when leaving her apartment. On May 31, after a number of emails asking to see her, he emailed “Why are you like this. Why? I just thrown away $400 every month and go nowhere and can’t do anything. Where I could use and save that $$$. Why are you like this a retarded stupid fucking dyke bitch… Fuck you piece of shit you are”, which she interpreted as his saying that she was responsible for his situation. It was again an unwanted email. She testified that his attitude seemed to be one of entitlement; everything always seemed to revolve around him, including this, which suggested that he could save money if he lived with her. The emails requesting that she see him continued. On June 14, he sent an email stating “Why are you being a real stupid fucking bitch.”

[35] On June 20, he emailed: “Nothing works for you. You need to get back to me about my mail and the CRA needs to send the rest there. This should be a criminal offence. Not that stupid cunt dyke whore who did not want to encourage me for a threesome. Fuck you stupid bitch.” Ms. Everett testified that the reference to “stupid cunt dyke” was to the woman who lived around the corner, had a business, was married to another woman and had concerns about emails he was sending to her.

[36] On June 21, his email read “Still being a stupid ignorant cunt fuck all of you! I should walk 52 Division with a machine gun and open fire than [sic] Molotov cocktail that stupid cunt dyke Nigger whore to the ground. Heil Hitler.” Again on June 21, he wrote “I hate all Nigger [sic] on the face of the earth and more so any non-Nigger with one”. She testified that he was again referring to the lesbian couple around the corner from them. On June 22, 2016, he emailed her “Ready when you are. The sooner we get this over with the better!” She felt fearful. These emails were written shortly after the shootings in the Orlando gay nightclub. She did not want to keep the message to herself and then have something happen. She felt the emails were becoming bigger than she. Not only was he not respecting the fact that she did not want to correspond with him, and indeed, did not seem to understand her clear statements not to contact her, and kept persisting in emailing her and phoning her, but he was now sending threats regarding harming the public.

[37] His barrage of emails seemed unrelenting.

[38] Given the foregoing and the increasing intensity and nature of the emails, she finally went to the police in June 2016.

[39] She testified that he has not had further contact with her since he was arrested on the present charges.

[40] She introduced emails in Court and testified that they were not all of the emails that she received from him. She testified that she had deleted some that had a one word subject line such as “Why?”, had transferred some to another email address, and could not find some from two years before. She explained that as a freelance interpreter, her work was booked by email or telephone and that the accused’s emails were getting in the way. She was unable to stop the flow of emails and phone calls, as this was her means of booking her freelance work. She testified that there could have been emails in 2015 and possibly in 2016, although she had none.

[41] In cross-examination, she testified that she had not attempted to block any of the accused’s emails or his access to her email address as she did not know how to do so. She was not aware that this could be done at the time, but became aware of this in the Fall of 2016.

[42] When asked, in cross-examination why she had not gone to the police earlier, she stated that she was focusing on a serious family matter and had to be out of town on a number of occasions. It appears that her mother was ill and has subsequently died.

The Defence’s Case

[43] No evidence was called on behalf of Zaheer Ahmad, and he chose not to testify, as is his right.

Submissions of the Parties

Submissions of the Crown

[44] It is the submission of the Crown that the defence of criminal harassment pursuant to section 264(2)(b) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[45] The Crown argued that the repeated email communications from August 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 constituted harassment. It is the submission of the Crown that the evidence clearly establishes that the complainant was harassed and her work was interfered with by virtue of the emails, which caused her frustration, distress and anxiety. The emails and phone calls caused her to screen all unknown phone calls and to check the neighbourhood from her porch to determine that the accused was not in sight before leaving her home in the mornings. She was clearly tormented and troubled by the emails. The Crown submits that harassment has been defined in the case of R v Kordrostami, 2000 5670 (ON CA), 47 OR(3d) 788 as “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered”.

[46] The Crown argues that Mr. Ahmad knew that Ms. Everett was harassed by his emails or, in the alternative, was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed. She pointed to numerous examples of his emails in which he reacted to her indication that she would not respond (“Why are you treating me like this…”: September 4, 2015 6:50 PM); acknowledging that she had not responded and trying to alter her behaviour (“ Am I on good terms with you now?: May 30, 2016, 1:49 PM); acknowledging that he is reaching out but she will not respond (“I am going to call you again and leave a VM”: May 31, 2016 8:32 PM); again acknowledging that she is not responding (“Can you just be normal and email me back”: June 6, 2016 12:33 PM); continuing to acknowledge that she has not responded, but persisting in demanding a response (“I deserve an explanation!”); taking different approaches in order to try to get her to respond, including sending emails with nice content, nasty content, dirty content and lewd photographs: June 20, 2016 at 8:04 PM, 9:56 PM, and 10:07 PM; (“Nothing works for you”); and sending lewd and frightening emails (“Still being a stupid ignorant cunt funk all of you! I should walk 52 Division with a machine gun and open fire, than [sic] Molotov cocktail that stupid cunt dyke nigger to the ground. Heil Hitler.”) In his email of June 2, 2016 at 1:18 AM, he acknowledged in the re line that it had also been emotionally difficult for him, acknowledging that he was aware it was emotionally difficult for her (“This has all been hard enough and emotionally also for me!”).

[47] It was further the submission of the Crown that even if he did not have a subjective knowledge of the effect of his emails on her he was reckless as to the effect of the emails and the fact that she was harassed.

[48] It is the position of the Crown that the conduct of the accused caused the complainant to fear for her safety, and that her fear was, in all of the circumstances, reasonable. Ms. Everett testified that she was afraid of Mr. Ahmad, and specifically was afraid of the uncertainty of what he may do based on his emails. He appeared to be unpredictable in nature which caused her anxiety due to the nature and onslaught of the emails. He appeared to have a sense of entitlement, would not leave her alone, and caused her to be concerned for her safety. He did not respect boundaries. Some of his emails could be interpreted as threats, or veiled threats such as “watch out” “see you soon precious” “the sooner the better”, referenced at para 27 above, all of which caused her to fear for her safety.

[49] Ms. Everett’s fear was reasonable given the history of the relationship, and the context of the circumstances. Through his emails, the accused had shown that he was unpredictable and that his moods varied from moment to moment and email to email. In 2015, the complainant testified that she felt that she had the situation somewhat under control but by late 2015 and early 2016, the emails increased in frequency and became more unpredictable in content. There were sporadic tirades and rants when she requested him to stop sending emails and stop asking to live with her. Her fear of the unknown quality of the emails and the potential threat reasonably caused her to fear for her safety.

[50] The Crown submits that Ms. Everett was a credible and reliable witness who conceded that she cared for the accused, outlined the evolution of their relationship and what drove her to finally seek the assistance of the police.

[51] In the case of R v Walling, [2010] O.J. No. 4393, the court recognized that a person can both love and fear another person. Just because someone continues a friendship does not mean that they may also, given the circumstances, fear for their safety as regards that person.

[52] The frequency, content and intensity of the emails caused her to become and to remain fearful. She explained the reason that she continued to be responsive in 2015, namely to continue to know his whereabouts and state of mind out of self-preservation and attempting to placate him. Ultimately, she had to tell him to leave her alone and to stop all communication. She screened her phone calls, she surveyed her neighbourhood from the porch before leaving her apartment each morning due to safety concerns. She testified that she had a cognitively heavy job and that these emails affected her day and her work. She stated that she does not believe that she emailed him after January or February of 2016, and there was no evidence adduced to suggest otherwise.

Submissions of the Defence

[53] It is the position of the defence that the Crown has failed to prove all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence submits that the Crown has failed to prove that the accused had a subjective knowledge or was reckless regarding the harassing nature of the emails, nor that the complainant feared for her safety or that the fear was reasonable. The defence submits that it is not sufficient that the accused ought to have known and that based on the relationship there is nothing to establish that he ought to have known. The defence submits that the accused was mentally ill, in a shelter, that he had difficulties in setting boundaries and that he used sexist and racist epithets, that these appeared to be tolerated by the complainant. For example, the 2015 email referencing the Molotov cocktails and “stupid bitch” was tolerated. There was no evidence that he engaged in unpredictable behaviour. Some of his belongings remained at the apartment. There was no evidence of his coming to the house, driving by the house, walking by the house. I note however that his only charge was repeated harassing communication, not attending at the house. The complainant’s own conduct indicates that she did not have a reasonable fear. She did not block the emails or go immediately to the police. She could have told him what she had done with the tax return but failed to do so. When he was in the MetroWest Detention Centre, she went to visit him numerous times.

The Law

[54] Sections 264(1) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code provide as follows:

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of:

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

[55] Pursuant to the jurisprudence, the elements of the offence are as follows:

i. It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in section 264(2) of the Criminal Code;

ii. It must be established that the complainant was harassed;

iii. It must be established that the accused engaged in such conduct knew that the complainant was harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed;

iv. It must be established, that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her; and

v. It must be established that the complainant’s fear was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.

R v Kosikar, (1999), 1999 3775 (ON CA), 138 C C.C. (3d) 217; R v Lamontagne (1998), 129 C.C.C. (3d) 217; R v Sillip (1997), 1997 ABCA 346, 120 C.C.C. (3d) 384

[56] It is, therefore, conduct that harasses by inducing fear that falls within this provision. “Harassed” has been defined in the case law as “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered”: R v Kordrostami, 2000 5670 (ON CA), 47 OR (3d) 788.

Analysis

[57] Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the requisite elements of the offence, as set forth at para 55 above, have been established?

1. Did the accused engage in the conduct set out in section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code?

[58] The accused was charged with repeated communication with Ms. Everett, which caused harassment. The volume of emails introduced in evidence at this trial establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct engaged in by the accused meets the first element of the test.

2 Was the complainant harassed?

[59] As indicated above, the jurisprudence has defined “harassed” as “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered”: R v Kordrostami, supra. The evidence of the complainant clearly indicated that, as at August of 2015, she made it clear to the accused that she did not want him to correspond with her further, and that if he did, she would not respond. She testified that she was becoming frustrated, apprehensive, anxious, nervous, and upset and distressed by the continued barrage of emails from him, which continued for almost a year after she indicated that she did not want to correspond with him further.

[60] She did candidly admit that at the beginning, through mid-2015, she did not cut him off, but attempted to sympathize with him and his problems and respond in a positive way to assist him. Her early emails were friendly and encouraging. However, she became more careful in her emails, as time went on, given that his emails appeared to be more and more unpredictable, and he seemed to lack self-regulation, as well as an ability to understand the boundaries she set. She became concerned about his mental health and stability.

[61] She testified that, as it became clear that he refused to understand that she did not want him to stay with her or to correspond, his emails became more and more intrusive, unwelcome, and unwanted and his persistence at continuing to send a barrage of emails requesting to stay with her began to play on her, mentally and emotionally.

[62] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that as at 2016, she was being harassed by the barrage of emails, which caused her to be anxious, worried and fearful. While she requested that he stop communicating, he continued in an increasingly aggressive manner. The barrage of emails interfered with her work and her peace of mind.

[63] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the second element of the offence has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

[64] Is there evidence to establish that the accused was aware that his emails, in the words of the jurisprudence set forth above, “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled or badgered” Ms. Everett? Ms. Everett made it very clear to him in her email of August 20, 2015, that she wanted no further contact with him and that he could not reside with her ever again. It was made clear that his emails were unwanted, illustrating the unwanted nature of his emails in that email of August 20, 2015. Again, on October 8, 2015, she stated “I have told you Zaheer many times to stay away from me.… I am fed up and disgusted by you… Leave me alone… Leave me the fuck alone.” His emails set forth above, at para 46, further illustrate an understanding that she would not respond but, nevertheless, his attempts to make her respond continued. As further indicated above, in his email of June 2, 2016, he further acknowledged that the emails were causing emotional difficulty. Nevertheless, he continued to send emails to her thereafter.

[65] I am satisfied, based on all of the evidence, that the accused knew that his emails were harassing Ms. Everett or, that he was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether she was being harassed by his emails. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the third element of the offence has been established.

4. Did the conduct cause the complainant to fear for her safety?

[66] The complainant testified that the continued emails, after she had made it very clear that she did not want to correspond further, and the continued emails requesting or demanding that he be permitted to reside at her apartment again, after she had made it clear from 2015 and explicitly clear in her email of August 20, 2015, that she did not want him to live with her ever again, and after the explicit direction to leave her alone in October 2015, caused her to be increasingly nervous, distressed, apprehensive and anxious.

[67] In early 2015, when she continued to respond to his emails and provide support for him, she testified nevertheless that she became more careful and guarded in her responses due to, his unpredictability, her suspicions concerning his mental health and his apparent lack of self-regulation.

[68] After she ceased all communication and refused to correspond further with him or to reply to his emails in the Winter of 2016, he advised her by email that he was coming over to her home. She testified that this caused her to be very upset and fearful, such that she called her neighbour in the upstairs apartment to come to her apartment and to be with her. As a result of this unwanted intrusion, after she had made it clear that she did not want to see him further, she became concerned that this may happen again. She began to survey the vicinity of her home, prior to leaving for work each morning, to ensure that he was not there. She testified that she became afraid of him.

[69] In this regard, I note that she struck me as a strong person and a strong personality. I noted that she found it difficult to say that she was afraid or fearful, although she did testify to her fear and maintained such in cross-examination.

[70] Based on all of the evidence, I find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused’s conduct caused Ms. Everett to fear for her safety.

5. Was the complainant’s fear, in all of the circumstances, reasonable?

[71] I am satisfied, having reviewed all of the email exchanges, and email of the accused, that his emails became increasingly random, violent, and numerous of those emails could be interpreted as threatening to the complainant.

[72] He had shown himself to be unpredictable, had shown himself not to respect any boundaries, after he knew that she did not want to receive any more communications from him, continued to email her many times, after he knew that she did not want him to reside with her ever again, continued repeatedly to ask her to permit him to live with her; after he became aware that she did not want to see him anymore or to have him visit, came to her home in the winter of 2016 and caused her great fear. She testified that she was afraid of his persistent behaviour and his inability or refusal to respect the boundaries she had set. His behaviour and the content of his emails evidenced this.

[73] I am satisfied, in all of the circumstances, that a reasonable person would fear for their safety as a result of what the accused did.

[74] In all of the circumstances, and based on the evidence before the Court, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant’s fear was reasonable.

[75] I am satisfied that all elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[76] I find the accused, Zaheer Ahmad, guilty, as charged, pursuant to section 264(1) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Carole J. Brown, J.

Released: October 17, 2017